AKC Standards and/or Breed Descriptions

Hey there... Since that thread was locked...(not sure where I'm the one being hit on that one...I didn't mean any offense by my comments...and truly wasn't trying to be arguementative in any way)... Akitas are not aggressive to a fault and Pits are...so I see why it's not written in as a requirement for a standard in those breeds and other bullies...that does totally make sense...

I guess I was more pointing out that they should mention the possibility in the breed description rather than skipping it all together as they often do...Last time I read the breed discritpion on the AKC website it didn't list the possibility that Am Staffs could be dog/animal aggressive and often times are... I'm sure it's a VERY fine line to tread...I know it is...but I think it's somewhat irresponsible for them to not mention this fact as it could lead to more problems down the road with people who don't understand that the breed is still OFTEN times dog aggressive etc...could be that it's written in now but it was before and then changed to omit that ppossiblity even...

On that note...why is is PC to mention or require animal aggression in the Akita's standard when it is not PC to even mention the possiblity of it in the Am Staff's breed description... I'm not an AKC fan at all and this is just ONE reason... THey do GREAT work to help fight BSL in ALL areas not just breed bans but...sometimes...they could do more etc... Anyway that's my rant...

So does the AKC still recognize the JRT as the smaller earthdog that it is rather than the Parsons Terrier they decided to change the JRT to???

That's an iterresting bit of drama within a breed I'd be interrested in hearing about... OUr Boerboel standard is currently under scrutiny and so it would be interresting to see what a dramatic standard change does for breeders or against them in some cases... Hmmmm...

Anyone see any other issues with AKC standards of other breeds?

 

Oh definately. I'd love to see the outcome and hell thats gonna break out when the Boerboel (if it ever happens) becomes a recongnized breed....
That'll be intresting as the blues were bad, now good, the pigmentation rules always changeing as we disgussed....
The ACD has scrutny as well. Spotted and mottled used to be good, now bad and the merel and roaning is more acceptable, then the mask size, and body spots, as well as the docking....ugh....

Whats with the JRT??? their changing it now??? would like to know more on that....

 

It's not a Jack Russel anymore from what I understand...it's a Parson's because they wanted to go with a taller standard... Unfortunately the new standard for the Parson's can't go to earth so...WAY off as far as what the breed was used for... I mean the tail has to be big enough for a handle to pull the dogs out of the fox dens etc... If he can't go to earth...why have a handle tail??? I'm not sure if there's still JRT's that are not Parson's or what...but I do know that there is now a Parson's...

Yeah I doubt the Boerboel will ever be AKC recognized if the working people have anything to say about it. They're not really made for dog shows and aren't so great in them because of the guardian stuff and possible dog aggression (it's likely towards dogs that are unfamiliar being much like the LGD's and all)... So that's that... We hope NO AKC recognition and likely won't get FCI even till they iron out a good standard... BUT on that note the main standard the FCI would even look at for them ALLOWS red nosed dogs in and doesn't specify nose color only pigment... So it would and should be a fault... RATHER they specify coat color and blues are not allowed... United South African Kennel Union I think is the name... or just South African Kennel Union... That's the standard the IACBA goes or went by...

VERY interresting stuff IMO...

 

I've been reading about that.

Whats the deal with the blacks being brindles, and the dilution of the brindle can't be more than a degree??? Very confusing.
Hopefully they'll iron something out soon. LOL frustrating yet very intresting IMO as well.

DS is trying to advertise the blues now. check it out...very weird ppl. I contacted them and they couldn't even tell me the dogs ancestry nor the history. I just generally asked what was the breed bred for. And the guy could only tell me that they make great family pets. Wanted to go WAY off subject when asked about his dogs. Something is VERY fishy there.

oh and the MA ordeal, I think she's got an alias on another thread.....
that or theres just another moron promoting bad dogs and bashing others for doing better than her or the same as her....

 

Where is this drama? She often goes by Ann on other boards now so...

Is it on the USBA board??? Hmmm...

DS...??? Can't place it...I'm sure I'll smack myself in the head when you tell me...

AS far as Brindling goes there's little standard for that...they might SAY it's tough but really it is minimal... Black brindle is all they can call them because technically black is not allowed... WEIRD since they want so much pigment...

Anyway... It's a bit of a mess but seriously there are only THREE registries that one needs to stick to... USBA, SABT and SABA... SABA is more important for the US people because it's a working registry...for working your dogs and showing too...you can get SABA titles and stuff and it doesn't really go by the SABT appraisal only theory... ALSO the SABA is recognized by ARBA and pretty much in line with other registries EXCEPT for the SABT who is in it for the money... SABT wants basically to sell their dogs so they're the ones changing everything all the time... THis not allowing bitework though is going to really kick their butts with the US community... SABA is FAST becoming a registry preferred by breeders... USBA is THE biggest in the US but it's just that...ONLY a registry like the CKC well similar (Continental)...except they require more of registered dogs than a pic... but no conformation showing or working of dogs is necessary or beneifical or even offered in the USBA...

That's the quick rundown...LOL

 

Once again...The AKC does NOT set breed standards! The AKC registers dogs, maintains records, licenses judges, and sanctions dog shows and working trials. The breed standards are set by the parent club of each breed, whether it is recognized by the AKC or not.

While the AKC has a set criteria for recognition of any new breed, it is up to the members of the national breed club to seek recognition. If they don't want recognition, the AKC board is not going to hunt them down and force recognition on them.

When changes are made to any breed standard, it is at the behest of the members of the breed club, not the AKC. If the governing body of the breed club wishes to change a standard, they submit the changes to the AKC. If/When the AKC approves the changes, they go back to the breed club for a vote by the full membership. If the changes pass, it is re-submitted to the AKC, and becomes official on a set date. So don't blame the AKC, blame the national breed club and it's members.

As for the Akita, and it's requirement for dog aggression; that was determined by the parent club to be a desirable and historic trait of the breed. It was added to encourage breeders not to seek to eliminate the trait from the breed.

The AmStaff breed club, in an effort to distance themselves from dog fighting, and in an effort to dilute the trait of aggression in the breed, chose not to require dog aggression as a trait of the breed. It was not meant to deny or cover up the fact that AmStaffs can be aggressive toward other dogs or animals. It was to discourage breeders from seeking to maintain or intensify a trait that was concidered undesirable in a show dog or family pet. And again, it was the national breed club, not the AKC, that made that decision.

 

I know it's up to the parent club of the breed but it's also up to the AKC to accept changes on behalf of the breed... Registries are yet another way for people to keep stud books strait and standards straight. Another way for people to basically police the breeders of particular breeds recognized by said registry... IF the AKC was not HIGHLY influencial in what standards are accepted or not accepted by a breed club etc... Then there wouldn't be such covet for show titles from the AKC from breeders of recognized breeds... The AKC is not at fault completely but as a policing body it is responsible to a LARGE degree of the loss of many working abilities in MANY breeds. As a policing body the AKC is responsible for how they represent the breeds they accept etc... They ultimately responsible as the defining factor once the breed club, parent club decides to try to do one thing or another... Try for recognition or try for a change in standard...

"If/When the AKC approves " It's up to the AKC to approve of changes, breeds to accept, and parent clubs to support... ultimately AKC is who is responsible for what standards their breeds have in their particular registry along with descriptions.

Getting away from fighting and whether it's desireable or not does not change the fact of what is and what is not truth and what is and what is not a skewing of that truth... APBT's and staffys' CAN be dog aggressive and often are depending on the line... the AKC has chosen to accept the description of said breeds to be WITHOUT that disclaimer which is unfortunate.

AKC is not BAD but it is not good either... Parent clubs are also at fault and should be held accountable absolutely...HOWEVER the standard that is accepted by the registry is at the registries descretion point blank...

NOT trying to badmouth the AKC because it's a large registry and it takes two to tango when it comes to changes that are bad for a breed etc...

For example... SEVERAL parent clubs insist that for Boerboel's a Red nose is a DQ...HOWEVER there is ONE parent club in it's originating country that says it's okay...or just a fault... The IABCA is responsible for choosing that standard and registry to support and therefore the IABCA is responsible for titling dogs with this fault etc... SAME thing with the AKC...or ARBA or UKC for that matter... Registry is still at fault for accepting certain parent clubs and their standards.

 

FYI Disclaimer

To mee this is all very stimulating conversation and not meant to be any kind of personal bash in any way...just discussion in wich we can all learn something... Seems I keep getting mis-understood as bashing this or that when I'm simply trying to have a meaningfull and interresting discussion... I hope moderators can appreciate differences in opinion as opposed to bashing and bickering... I've NEVER meant any bickering of any kind to be the point of any thread here or any post of mine either... Just stimulating conversation and discussion of points some people may and are allowed to disagree with...along with explanation of points etc... NOTHING MORE... As far as I knew that was allowed here as long as personal attacks were not used etc...

On to registry discussion...I'm still interrested to know if anyone out there knows if the JRT is still recognized by the AKC or if it only recognizes the Parson's and how that is and has been worked out by parent clubs etc...

 

I haven't read this whole thread, but I thought the name change was just that - changing the name from Jack Russel to Parson Russell. I didn't think there was a change in the standard, but I didn't really pay attention.

Errrrr, but I just found this on a website:

 

If my understanding is correct (and I think this is just another way of saying what Jamiya said,)

The AKC recognizes the Parson Russell Terrier. These are the longer-legged ones, and I believe they come in three different coats: smooth, broken and rough. (I may be wrong about this last part so please feel free to correct me if you know differently.) From what I've seen, these TEND to have less symmetrical marking, if they have marking, on the face.

The AKC does not recognize the other type known as the Jack Russell Terrier. These have shorter legs and I believe these come only in smooth (short coat.) From what I've seen of these, the faces seem to tend to have more color- (usually black and brown) than the Parson, and the face markings are usually more symmetrical.

 

Sara, I understand where you're coming from. But I don't agree that the AKC, or any other registry, has that much influence when the original breed club submits it's standard for recognition. Those standards are written well before a club submits them for recognition.

Of course, the AKC, UKC, CKC (Canadian, not the other CKC) ultimately decides if they're going to recognize one national breed club as the arbritor of the standard, and not others, if there are others. But the breed club still has the responsibility of writing that standard. If they can't reach common ground, the national breed club can just go on without AKC recognition. Which is what some of them do.

I also understand the issue of workability with many of the AKC breeds. But I still think the responsibility for that lies squarely on the shoulders of those breeders who focus mainly on what's 'pretty', at the expense of all else. For too long, the AKC did not even have working tests for many breeds, such as terriers, where people could see if their pretty show dogs could still perform the functions they were intended to perform. That's changing, slowly.

More people are becoming interested in working titles as well as conformation. Hopefully, this trend will continue. My own dog (standard longhaired dachshund) will never be a bench champion, as he's neutered, but he's working as a therapy dog, is in training for obedience and tracking, and we'll probably go on to earth work if he shows an aptitude for that. His breeder stresses soundness and workability, as well as temperment and 'pretty' conformation.

Honestly, I think breeders that wish to maintain workability in their dogs should stay clear of the AKC, at least for the time being. Not because the AKC is responsible for the decline in workability, but because those people who only breed dogs for conformation shows tend to ruin working breeds.

Going back to the Akita, for example. Look at pictures of Japanese Akitas, and compare them to American Akitas. They're not even the same dog anymore. And that's not the fault of the AKC. That's the fault of American breeders.

 

A long time ago a very wise mentor said to me - Judges, KC are not the keepers of our breed WE (meaning breeders/breed club members) ARE.

 

Buyers ultimately are the market and breeders to breed for money and buyers do so with the help of certain registries and parent clubs that help them in that endeavor... A conformation show is EASY to get in the bag but working trial is not... Conformation shows are the best way bad breeders can excuse their practice and make it LOOK responsible and worhty... the AKC is the LARGEST breed registry that works on that principle of "if the dog is pretty" and I blame them for the lack of responsibility because they do not hold breed clubs to a higher standard...requiring those who wish to belong to a club who is also in it for the money. Conformation shows is where it's at in that respect... AKC is the biggest...so breed clubs that are on that track head for AKC recognition of their breeds...the owners have little to say about which parent club does what when they do not support said club...

I know you don't understand that concept because you don't have contact with any emerging breeds and I'll be the first to admit I didn't know it either...till I became a Boerboel owner, enthusiast and breeder... We have THREE parent clubs that are from the country of Origin and 6 JUST in the US... The parent clubs from the country of Origin all have different agendas... ONE to promote the breed as an export...a pretty face that can be sold to those abroad as a rare breed and registered with them and appraised by them for a price...and rated as such... One breed club that aims for FCI recognition and nothing more and another club that upon the uproar of working people in the US has begun testing dogs for working ability at appraisals (a fashion show of sorts)...

There are two main registries for Boerboels in the US... the USBA which doesn't even have conformation shows or the SABA an org that does it all without support from the MAIN club from the breed's country of origin...

AS a responsible breeder... What am I left with??? I pick the SABA and alienate myself from the breed clubs that are seeking recognition or money...the ones that will likely be responsible for getting the breed recognized by the AKC along with their lack standards... Who's fault is that??? the clubs no doubt...but the AKC ultimately for accepting lax standards and helping clubs like the aformentioned by making show only type dogs and standards acceptable and even sought after...

TAKE the UKC for example... They have working titles for every group and even some breeds (save the "non sporting" and toys) but...at least they are giving responsible registries something they would like to support in that they are working dogs and giving the parent clubs a way to title dogs in BOTH conformation AND working stuff... AKC is working towards that but why??? and how quickly???

I see your point completely and think you are right but only to a point... as I said before...it takes two to tango and the registry AKC, UKC, FCI, ARBA, IABCA etc... must take responsibility as well.

As for the JRT... I've learned a lot so far... didn't know they still recognized the JRT but it doesn't suprise me that UKC still does recognize them as they were meant to be in the working field... Kudos to them...

 

I do agree with you about the emerging breeds, rare breeds, working breeds. I was aghast when the AKC accepted Border Collies. There goes another working breeds abilities to work, if some dedicated enthusiasts don't keep stressing working abilities.

The breeder I purchased my Dachshund from double registers her dogs just for that reason. So she'll have a forum to test the dogs working abilities as well as conformation.

I guess I view the AKC as fulfilling a function certain breeders prefer; a beauty contest. Hopefully, those people, few though they may be, who are interested in having a dog with good conformation that can still work will continue to pressure the AKC to offer working as well as conformation titles.

Personally, if I had one of the many true working breeds, I'd avoid the AKC like the plague. The UKC, while far from perfect, offers much more in the way retaining a working dogs original function. Perhaps the better solution would be if the AKC would develop and maintain a seperate working dog registry. A nice idea, I suppose, but not likely to happen anytime soon.

 

Sounds like Nirvana to me...

I'm sad to see the breeds slated to be accepted in the AKC currently honestly... Cane Corso, Presa Canario, Central Asian Shepherd and Ovcharka alont with several others... I'm waiting to be next being led by a parent org. I don't support...ugh...

 

I was shocked when I saw the Tibetan Mastif is now in the miscellaneous group. What were these people thinking?

 

$$$$$

I know if I could put down AKC registered in a newspaper add for Rare breed South African Boerboel/South African Mastiff I could sell puppies at $1500 a pop for pets...